Ash Maurya
Apr 5 · 2 min read

The theory of evolution was built on research and there are methods for studying evolution.

I’m a “Practice Trumps Theory” type of person. And if I’m supposed to just theorize customer behavior with JTBD with no methods to help formulate a theory of customer behavior, and be expected to deliver on breakthrough innovation, I’d rather take up magic or astrology :)

Either I’ve been practicing jtbd incorrectly, and need to call what I do something else… or there isn’t one interpretation of jtbd.

From the body of work out there, the evidence is more for the latter. I’ve read everything out there including all your posts and book(s). But we need methods, not just theory.

I can explain the tax accountant scenario just as easily with the trigger framework:

When I started a new business, I needed to get my taxes done, so I hired a tax accountant (who BTW I hire/pay just for auditing my books and filing my taxes once a year).

Every year, around Jan 15th I have a new triggering event, and I evaluate if I should rehire my tax accountant. As long as I have no reason to switch (no expectation violation), I continue to hire my tax accountant to get that job.

If one year, I get a letter from the IRS (expectation violation), I’ll look for an alternative solution.

===

For an innovator wanting to get into the tax space, I can give them specific research steps to help them understand the current solution space, prioritize problems worth solving, and then assemble and test a new solution using an offer testing process that positions their product for a hire.

===

That’s the outcome I want to be able to deliver from this body of work.

    Ash Maurya

    Written by

    Author of Running Lean, Scaling Lean, and Creator of Lean Canvas - Helping Entrepreneurs Find Their Business Model @LEANSTACK.